DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

35(2AB) of the Act, without appreciating that the appreciating that the said expenditure has not lost its c said expenditure has not lost its character either as expenditure on haracter either as expenditure on scientific research or as business expenditure incurred wholly and scientific research or as business expenditure incurred wholly and scientific research or as business expenditure incurred

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

35(2AB) of the Act, without appreciating that the appreciating that the said expenditure has not lost its c said expenditure has not lost its character either as expenditure on haracter either as expenditure on scientific research or as business expenditure incurred wholly and scientific research or as business expenditure incurred wholly and scientific research or as business expenditure incurred

DEEPAK NOVOCHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

35(2AB) of the Act, without appreciating that the appreciating that the said expenditure has not lost its c said expenditure has not lost its character either as expenditure on haracter either as expenditure on scientific research or as business expenditure incurred wholly and scientific research or as business expenditure incurred wholly and scientific research or as business expenditure incurred

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

35. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that - (i) These expenses in comparison to total expenses (i.e. Rs. 3,636.75 crores) are minuscule, which comes to around only 0.02% of our total expenditure. (ii) That expenses attributable to the earlier years but crystallize in the year under consideration on receipt of M/s. Asian Paints invoice/bills ought

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

section 68 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion the addition made by the AO on account of receipt of share premium is sustained. The Ground of Appeal No. 2 is dismissed." 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 6. We have heard both the parties

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act of the recipient company. Further, reliance in this regard is also placed on the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v Steller Investments Ltd 251 ITR 263, wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court affirmed the following conclusion of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court: 35

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 of A.Y. 2018-19 the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has also referred statement submitted before the AO in the form of Annexure – 14 running into 28 different column wherein details of each and every loans have been provided. The total fresh loans accepted during the year comes to only Rs. 86,10,21,727/-. The assessee

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

section 68 of A.Y. 2018-19 the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has also referred statement submitted before the AO in the form of Annexure – 14 running into 28 different column wherein details of each and every loans have been provided. The total fresh loans accepted during the year comes to only Rs. 86,10,21,727/-. The assessee

LUMINANT INVESTMENTS LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Luminant Investments Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle 40, (Formerly Known As Luminant Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Investment Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 121, Radha Bhuvan, 1St Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Pan No. Aaacl 0834 A Appellant Respondent

section 68 to the hilt, as observed by the hon'ble court. The assessee in the instant case is, observed by the hon'ble court. The assessee in the instant case is, observed by the hon'ble court. The assessee in the instant case is, however a private li however a private limited company, in which the public

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 68 of the I.T. Act which assessee has failed to do so. Without fulfillment of the onus cast u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of the discussion in the pre paragraphs it is humbly requested that the order

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

35,375/- was unexplained cash credit in terms of section as unexplained cash credit in terms of section as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

35,375/- was unexplained cash credit in terms of section as unexplained cash credit in terms of section as unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14.” 19. From the above it is therefore amply clear that the requirement to substantiate the source of source of borrowings, brought in by the Finance Act, 2022, is not applicable

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT KEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14.” 19. From the above it is therefore amply clear that the requirement to substantiate the source of source of borrowings, brought in by the Finance Act, 2022, is not applicable

ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14.” 19. From the above it is therefore amply clear that the requirement to substantiate the source of source of borrowings, brought in by the Finance Act, 2022, is not applicable